Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review

The E-M1 is the second model in Olympus's OM-D series and extends the range further into semi-pro/enthusiast territory. There are two main distinctions that set the E-M1 apart from its little brother (the E-M5) - a more sophisticated autofocus system and a 'buttons for everything' design approach. As such the two models will coexist, with the E-M1 sitting at the very top of Olympus's lineup.

The biggest technological step forward on the E-M1 is the addition of on-sensor phase detection elements, giving the camera two distinct focus modes. The phase-detection system is used when lenses from the original Four Thirds system, which were designed for use that way, are attached. With native, Micro Four Thirds lenses, the camera will mainly stick with the contrast detection system that has proved so fast and accurate on the E-M5. Only if you use tracking AF will the camera utilize phase-detection information with a Micro Four Thirds lens.

The E-M1 also gains the excellent 2.3M-dot electronic viewfinder panel we first saw as the VF-4 accessory for the PEN E-P5. Not only is the resolution very impressive, but the viewfinder optics give a viewfinder with magnification of up to 1.48x (depending on display mode), which puts it only a fraction behind the 0.76x viewfinder in Canon's 1D X and ahead of Nikon's pro-grade D4 DSLRs.

There's also a more advanced 'TruePic VII' processor in the E-M1 that conducts a variety of lens corrections, when creating JPEGs, leading the company to proclaim the best image quality offered by one of its cameras. Not only can the E-M1 remove the colour fringing caused by lateral chromatic aberration, Olympus says that it also tunes its sharpening to take into account the lens's sharpness, and to combat any softening due to diffraction (particularly at very small apertures).

The biggest difference between the E-M1 and the E-M5, though, is the degree of direct control on offer. We really liked the E-M5's twin-dial control system, but the E-M1 goes beyond that by providing button-and-dial combinations for quickly changing almost every imaginable setting on the camera. It's the kind of approach you don't usually get until the very top of manufacturers' lineups - it means you have to get used to where every function is, but can shoot fluidly once you have.

The E-M1 inherits the '2x2' dial approach Olympus previously used on the E-P5 - flicking a switch on the camera changes the dials from controlling shutter speed, aperture or exposure compensation to changing ISO and white balance. However, all this direct control doesn't come at the expense of the potentially slower but easier to find touch-screen interface - the E-M1 has this too. Overall the camera can be operated pretty much however you fancy.

Built-in Wi-Fi for remote shooting and image transfer to smartphone or tablet

Dust, splash and freeze-proof (to -10 °C)

Gained over the E-M5

True Pic VII processor, with lens corrections

1/8000 sec top shutter speed, 1/320 sec flash sync

Built-in microphone socket (rather than optional accessory adapter)

Flash X-sync socket

Built-in Wi-Fi

Focus 'peaking' display

In-camera HDR blending (two modes), previewed in viewfinder

Four Thirds is dead. Long live Four Thirds.

As well as representing the highest-end Micro Four Thirds camera yet, the E-M1's role is also about offering continued support for users of the original Four Thirds SLR system. Olympus created some very nice Four Thirds lenses, but the company struggled to make enough impact in the SLR market to justify the cost of continuing development for both systems in parallel.

The company claims to have studied what the E-M1 and a hypothetical 'E-7' SLR could offer, and concluded that, while image quality, durability and speed would have been the same, the OM-D design allowed both a substantial size advantage and a much greater viewfinder magnification than would be possible with an optical finder. As such the E-M1 should be considered the successor to the E-5.

We'll look at the performance of the camera with Four Thirds lenses in a little more depth later in this article. But in principle, the on-sensor phase detection autofocus system should be much more effective than contrast detection when it comes to controlling Four Thirds lenses, all of which were primarily designed to be driven by phase detection-based systems.

Comments

I just got this camera (used), and I love many things about it. One thing I don't love is the lack of recoverable detail in the shadows. The AF system is vastly improved over my old E-PL5, but it's definitely no DSLR. The Mark II version should be a lot better for this purpose, but at least the E-M1 is serviceable for C-AF tracking. My old E-PL5 was totally useless for it.

Coming from a Canon DSLR background for 5 or so years (and barely used it because of the bulky-ness) this Olympus is now just about my everyday use because of it's compactness and durability. The 5-axis image stabilization has made a massive difference in my images, using the 40-150mm f4-5.6 gives me a great range in zoom, for the photography I do it is all I've needed to do everything I want, I am so much more happier with my Olympus EM-1 as compared to my canon.

The ONLY problem I have (which isn't that important to me at the moment) is the way you have to do a panorama. You have to take the photos as separate images and join them in the photo editing program that comes with the camera bundle. I would prefer to do the panorama as one photo at the time of shooting, but it's not something that is worrying me. (:

I take photographs about 20 days a month. This camera can do a lot, but here is what it cannot do:

-- cannot track flying birds. If I see an eagle and focus with continuous track, the camera cannot track the bird even if it flies right in front of my face. -- cannot get the blurred background that a DSLR can get. This is an important with birds or butterflies when there is a busy background. Comparing my photos with those of friends taking the same shots at same location, my camera falls short.-- this camera has difficulty focussing in low contrast situations, because it relies heavily on contrast detection.-- there are not enough megapixels to get details as modern cameras do. 16 megapixels does not get detail as 50 megapixel cameras do. Olympus needs to upgrade its sensor..-- this camera burns though batteries quickly. I carry 5 to shoot all day.-- there are no published lens specification that can be used with Photoshop for automatic "len correction."

For BIF, have you tried rotating the camera so it is in portrait orientation? The E-M1's phase detection sensors are horizontal only, so it may perform better at detecting the wings etc.

What lenses are you using? The maximum aperture will dictate how much separation and blurring you will have. Just remember that you will need a brighter lens than other DSLR brands because of the relatively smaller sensor that micro4/3 uses. You should be using a lens that is 1-2 stops brighter than the other camera brands.

A brighter lens will help in all the situations you've outlined above, including focus speed, depth of field and low light/low contrast focusing speed.

16 megapixels is not very high nowadays, but 50 megapixels is overkill for most applications, unless you are heavily cropping/enlarging or printing large. Agreed that Olympus needs to upgrade the sensor though.

Battery life is pretty much average for mirrorless cameras, and it is actually much better than a lot of Sony cameras. Just remember that mirrorless (live view) setups are much more battery hungry than DSLRs.

I believe that the lens corrections are already applied when moving photos into Adobe products, when dealing with Olympus and Panasonic m4/3 images.

It can indeed track flying birds. You won't get a 100% hit rate, but you should be able to come away with at least one or two shots from a burst that you can live with. I do it with this camera. Having a supertelephoto (not just telephoto) lens really helps. I use the Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II for this purpose.

The OM-D E-M1 Mark II is better for this purpose, but the original E-M1 is at least serviceable.

I have used this camera for 11 months and taken over 10,000 images using 7-14, 14-40 and 40-150mm f2.8 lenses - all of which are superb. I used it down to minus 5 degrees celsius on the Bernina Pass last March - no problem. So I brought it to China this week - not too cold BUT minus 15 degrees C at dawn.

YIKES - the shutter jams below minus 5 - I have to take the lens off and push the shutter down to carry on.

Now I know Olympus, Canon and Nikon all say their cameras are for use between 0 and 40 degrees BUT I have had 34 previous visits to China with my Canons down to minus 35 degrees and not a hint of trouble. This trip the guys with Canon, Nikon and Sony - NOT a GLITCH - just the OLYMPUS.

How can this be a serious PRO camera for nature, sports or in my case steam trains? If it packs up around minus 5 it is quite simply FATALLY FLAWED!

Their flash units are useless in a variable location pro environment. I have to use PocketWizards + Canon 600EX_RTs (more info under the recent general Mirrorless article).

The Wifi works but the interface is really bad. Olympus should look at CamRanger's interface which is truly workable. Hey Olympus, you could do it without the clip on transmitter!

I cannot use this camera much professionally which is a real shame. Sorted in the MK II?

Otherwise, the gem of a camera and the gem lenses are great and practical - you don't have poster sized prints in annual and sustainability reports.

I fly to most assignments: compare the weight and bulk of 2 bodies + 8 lenses I typically travel with - the Olympus kit would win hands down over the Canons - particularly now when cabin baggage is becoming more and more restricted.

I have owned this two years. I shoot raw and in a contrasty environment, I have been bracketing then doing HDR in Photoshop. I recently tried the "in camera HDR" and it did not turn out as well. And the camera only gave me a jpeg result. So I prefer post processing for HDR. Features that only work when using JPEG are not of interest to me because I want full color to work with.

I enjoy the light weight and carry it everywhere all day while traveling 5 or 6 months a year. However, I have compared image quality of my photos with photos of the same scenery by novices using iAuto mode with Canons and Nikons with larger sensors, and I see greater clarity and resolution in their photos. With sensors, size seems to matter.

I spent several days with tripod focussing with maximum telephoto on hummingbirds. Several times a day, the camera, just could not focus. Frustrated, I would turn the camera off, then turn it back on, to try to get it focussing again. Not sure what the problem is?

Yes Sensor size matters ;)I own a D3 (my work-horse) and a OM-D E-M1 that I bought for travelling and outdoor-type sports stuff...it's an excellent Camera (the E-M1) and I love the build quality, excellent viewfinder and the handling.The IQ is however getting a tad "dated" especially if compared to modern FullFrame offerings like a D810, D750, 5DS, etc. It simply doesn't compete in that regard.And it's a bit of a shame that this is not something that will "change" anytime soon for m43. Panasonic's GX8 with it's 20Mpx sensor doesn't do an better than the E-M1 imo.I still think it stacks quite favourably against *most* APS-C offerings... whilst not AS good in the resolution / Detail department, it's close enough ti be a non-issue.

Myself I probably will not upgrade the D3 to a D5 (unless the D5 is D800 sized) but rather get a D810 or whatever. and a more compact lens like Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 for travelling purposes.

The A6000 is about half price. something to consider. The crop factor on those old Zuikos is also less severe on the A6000 (your 50mm becomes a 75mm, for example). If you plan on shooting on daylight a lot and/or use manual focus a lot, you could maybe make due with the A6000.

The EM1 is more of a deluxe model. You get better ergonomics, better build, better viewfinder, better customisation, weather sealing (irrelevant if you're only using old non-weather-sealed lenses). One thing important to remember is that EM1, just like any Oly cameras from super cheap to expensive, stabilize all your lenses,

@bluevellet. TY for excellent comparison info to consider. After much deliberation decided to go Oly EM1. Will have 2x crop factor on my legacy glass but will still get good images out of them once I've figured out the ropes of using them. Added to the EM1 the battery holder and large eye cup, 12mm f/2.0, & 17mm f/1.8, for these focal lengths and manual focus control offered by these particular lenses - plus they look so good!

Will eventually add the Zuiko 12-40 f/2.8 pro and 60mm f/2.8 macro. Both are weather-sealed.

These cons are somewhet nit picky in my opinion.Interface and controls can be overwhelming initially>That's Oly. People learn the system anyway.In-camera Raw conversion interface is somewhat unintuitive.>Isn't it whats done in PS that really counts?Auto focus with Four Thirds lenses is slow in dim conditions with tricky subjects>Yeah. So what? It really does not apply to a new user, who will be buying the new lenses.Only one SD card slot>With the size of cards now, is this really that big a deal?Inconveniently-placed power switchOly must have thought it worthy enough to bring it to the new EM5 MkII.Disappointing video quality> The one thing in this list that will be important ...to videographers.Multi-screen live view interface looks very dated (e.g. can't combine electronic level and histogram)>Oh well ..even Oly is not perfect.Many still cannot accept Oly taking the lead all the time, and with a smaller sensor to boot.

Traded in my Sony a900 with the thought of buying a7, and ended up going with EM1. I am aware the a900 was an early "full frame" camera, but I have to say I prefer the images from the em1Also the handling of this camera is amazing, just makes you want to take pictures.Have the 12-40 and 40-150 pro lenses which are both pretty much tack sharp.Being an amateur I can't really comment on the depth of field issue that some comment on but in the real world I just don't get it, at f2.8 both these lenses give what I am looking for, with some latitude for operator error in focussing.Just ordered the 45mm 1.8 to round off the system for low light and extreme depth of field And all this along with a flash can fit in a small messenger bag, what a bonusJust blown away !

Wow. Why did you have an A900 in the first place? It's not a cheap piece of kit. I remember being tempted by the A850 at one time.

I would disagree with you that the EM1 IQ beats the A900. Maybe the Olympus JPEGs are more punchy, accessible and such, but you should, in theory, extract more RAW IQ from the A900 than the EM1, even if the Sony camera is a bit old now.

I also think the transition to the A900 and the A7 would have been easier in terms of interface and menus. They have a lot in common.

But who am I to argue with you? If you find the EM1 a better fit then so be it. :)

bluevellett: In answer to your questions:Had sony a700 and bought the a900 with 24-70 zeiss in a mad moment of camera lust whilst in Gibraltar i shoot in raw and jpeg at the time, I did not say the IQ was better, that I just preferred it. the a900 was very good to ISO 800, at iso100 would stand against anything out there. The noise performance from the Olympus is to my eye better and when there is noise it seems more filmlike. (though noise from a newer sensor FF is better) Dynamic range of a900 and Olympus are also similar. Another key decision was I found that a lot of my photography was when travelling and hiking and the olympus gave me a far lighter kit bag, even lighter than the a7 when lenses are taken into account

WACONImages: the 40-150 is a superb lens, absolutely tack sharp even at f2.8, very fast to focus, nice contrast, I don't do sport photography, but do photograph birds/wildlife and combined with 9fps shooting can track quite well and get some pretty good keepers. Not up there with a D4 but I would say as good as any sub £3k camera and lens combination

Nothing beats FF IQ but for some people like mePriceLens SizeMatters over the IQ.I really tried those FF lenses. And It looks so conspicuous.It will be harder for me to enjoy my hobby with those huge lenses.

If you compare two cameras based on one factor it simplifies things considerably. Exit the overly simplified argument with a trump card like "you can't beat the physics of a larger sensor" and Ta Da you have a clear winner! Everyone should get the Sony.

If maximum subject isolation and low light trump everything else, no one would buy full frame 35mm. It would only be large format or for the poor masses--medium format. And of course the A5s would outsell every other since it's the best in low light. No one cares about resolution or for that matter, lens selection, price, or system size.

So yeah, in a world where we can take out all factors that don't support our perspective and no one has a budget,... where is this world?

Not huge like the new lenses announced for Pentax FF coming soon. Those lenses look like logs on a brick. (Not that I don't want to get some of that action). I just got an A7 though to add to micro4/3rds. Neither perfect, but very complimentary.

I was surprised at the higher ISO image degradation compared to the E-M5. The difference between the two is noticeable beginning at ISO 3,200 in the test images. At ISO 12,800 all of the cameras images were equally bad.

First use of my Olympus OM-D EM1 using 50 mm macro four thirds lens. Replacing Olympus E620 from which I have never had great results even at ISO100 producing pixilated backgrounds. The image clarity and depth of field is outstanding on the EM1.

Good follow-up to add to this review of the E-M1 from several months ago. It's still an excellent mirrorless performer relative to newer cameras, like the GH4.

If I was still using a DSLR I'd never be in a position to afford a camera like the Nikon D4s, much less the better lenses you really need to add to the D4s to get the best possible performance out of it.

Yes, the GH4 ups the stakes with stunning AF (fast and stays fast in low light) and everything video.

But if still photography is your main priority, then the E-M1 is a better choice still. The better EVF, the IBIS and and better compativbility with 43 DSLR lenses make it more of an all-rounder for still photography.

So the "enthusiast videographer" would be perfectly OK with not being able to change any setting during (not even exposure compensation) during video recording? The AEL retention being available only when the camera was switched in movie mode beforehand is IMO a shortcoming due to bad software, almost a bug. I really don't see why this should not be available otherwise, and since it seems to be possible to affect exposure during video shooting, there seems to be no hardware limitation to having exposure compensation control while shooting video as well.

Mistake?I think theres a mistake on page 14 of the EM1 review, when comparing EM1 with EM5, right above the yellow pencils in the 3rd group of images: both columns indicates EM1 ISO 6400. Shouldn't the right column indicate EM5?Thank you.

Are there any updates on the hot pixel/extreme noise issue in long exposures on the E-M1 yet? I havent heard anything new in a long time. Has Olympus fixed the issue? Were only early EM-1s affected? I want to buy one, but with this issue, that is unlikely.

For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, it is well known that the E-M1 produces an ocean of hot pixels on long exposures of 30 seconds or more at base ISO, and the exposure time needed to make them visible drops by one stop for every stop you bump the ISO. Turning on dark frame subtraction almost eliminates the issue, but this makes star trails, fireworks, bracketed long exposures impossible. Examples can be seen here : http://www.seldomscenephotography.com/2013/11/14/the-olympus-e-m1-and-long-exposures/

DPReview : PLEASE update your review to include information on this issue with sample images. This is a HUGE problem that big review sites need to address and let be known, or Olympus may never fix the issue.

Excellent link, thanks for posting. I too have been on the fence regarding the E-M1. I have rented it and loved it, loved the image quality, EVF, and handling, but this hot pixels issue affects more than just stargazers.

Unless you are a professional portrait shooter, or one of those amateurs who is hung-up on blurred backgrounds, dof is just one small ingredient in a good photo. Besides, there are other ways to get a shallow dof. If you like shooting posed portraits and have an addiction to shallow dof fine, but for shooting from the hip, spontaneous portraits or street shooting ... good luck sticking that bazooka full frame and giant lens in someones face. And if minimal depth of field is what you crave, dump the D610 soccer mom full frame camera and jump up to a medium frame Hasselblad. Meanwhile, if you look at the pro level photos on 500px, you will see that only a small percentage of them use a shallow dof to blur out the background. My point is .. shallow depth of field is not and should not be the single criterion for buying a camera.

Back as a teenager, I schooled my knowledge of photography from Aaron Sussman's book, written mostly in the 60's, wherein the statement is made to the effect of, 'Even the simplest camera is better than any photographer'. Still true after all the improvements. Still true with musical instruments, golf clubs, hunting rifles, etc. There is no best camera, just good and better. A better musician, golfer, shooter, or photographer will embarrass us with our own inadequate equipment. Consequently, we can use their better equipment to our same result.

Anyhoo, depth of field has more aspects than just format size. Camera to subject distance, subject to background distance, focal length are all examples of how to control depth of field. The physics of photography have not changed but apparently the knowledge of them has, sadly.

Interestingly, in the 60's, 35mm (same size as Full Frame today) was considered a amateur miniature format and one of it's advantages was it's deep depth of field.

The in camera flash or flash add on has never been a viable solution. For that reason an external flash is recommended. Stronger flash and bounce flash are two good reasonsI am wondering if I will be able to use my Evolt 510 flash with this camera?

It has and always will be a viable solution, but not on every situation. Just like using a large flashgun is not always the best choice or a ringflash etc.

Like I use a lot the bundled flash because it fits to pocket and can be uses for portraits and macro very well by its nature.

People too often blame camera flash as terrible and advice it should never be used. But think about it. Olympus made a $1500 camera and then couldn't add a integrated flash because EVF so they bundled one small. Why? If it is so inferior, why to add? E-M1 is for professional use and why to add one when all pros has a flashgun? The fact is, do not tell what gear you can't use of you are a pro , because as creative photographer you are required to know all gear and what to use and when.In so many situations you can't bounce flash or (red eyes). And you really don't need more than fill-flash so it doesn't need to be a huge. So often the required reason to use flashgun is because you just look pro.

2-3 years ago I was trying Oly's(many of them) in a camera show, with not so challenging lighting situation.All Olympus cameras did struggle to focus...Pentax too.I do not know did this did improved lately. I know 3 years are like 1000 years in technology terms, passed.

Canon/Nikon did not had issues in focusing...My impression from Olympus that they struggle in that(focusing) department.

Funny I am selling my E-M5 OMD for just this issue, I don't know why everybody says it has great autofocusing, its crap in low light, hunts all the time back and forth in video low light, and i am talking sitting around the dinner table at a restaurant with full overhead lighting it hunts! A compact camera can do better. The Nikon D300s I have never has this problem. Does anybody own an OMD E-M1 is it any good at focusing in low light? I am wanting one for underwater photography, was going to buy a housing for the E-M5 but gave up on that idea because of this low light issue with autofocus

The E-M5.E-M1 have excellent S-AF and as fast as any camera the weakness and it is a very real weakness comes when you need C-AF or tracking.Along with the poorer high ISO .I speak as a long term mFT user and I currently still have the E-M1 though it will probably be sold to make way for the GH4 as video is a major interest to me. The only way Nikon users were getting worse results { AF,DR,image quality, high ISO} was if they were using P&S. Despite all its wonders the E-M1 actually managed to have slightly worse high ISO than the E-P5 etc. The 5 axis IS or any for of IS , is only advantageous in low light if you are shooting static subjects as IS has zero value for moving subjects.

The X-T1 looks to be a super camera with clearly superior image quality to the E-M1 , pity the video sucks or I would ditch mFT completly.Though to be fair the E-M1 has pretty weak video compared to the Panasonics.

For a mirrorless camera, Micro 4/3 still has a better selection of lenses and to me that is a deal breaker. The lenses are also smaller. The Fuji lenses are too big, almost equal in size to a DSLR.

Having tried the X-T1, I must say it is attractive in terms of looks but the EM1 is much more user friendly. It is also more responsive.

For image quality, the EM1 will give a crisper look with better colours. Good for landscape and general photography. The Fuji will give a better "green" if one prefer this bias. It has to do with the different sensor used.

Overall, I would prefer the EM1. Unfortunately, for the moment, the EM1 is more expensive but it has a true weather proof body with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. The Fuji is still trying to make its first weather proof camera.

Question for EM-1 users: Has anyone tried using old C-Mount lenses? Also is there a list of 'lenses which work well' with the MFT mount cameras? I hear that some produce much better quality circles on the MFT sensor than others.

Note: I did try to search at the top of the page but it I didn't seem to bring up anything on the forums. Is there a dedicated forum search which I've missed?

...and what battery life did you get? Is 350 frames ok for M1 since ..it is not a high profile camera as another one which too does 350 frames on a battery charge, but is evidently higher class and so is judged differently?

You should pay closer attention to the NEX forum, it's common complaint. Not sure if there's an app that fixes all of this (don't think so), but I know those are striking oversights with the camera without apps:

Inability to set bracketing and steps separately.

inability to set timer with bracketing (only possible with remote and even that comes with its own limitations)

Inability not to hold the shutter button with multiple bracketing steps

If you are bracketing it is easy to get 500+ shots on one charge. Presumably the VF to shutter ratio alters the effective consumption.Aftermarket batteries on eBay are cheap and there are even ones called full "process" or something like that - it means the original charger can be used.

They are $9 and work perfectly.

In the dark that VF dusts glass finders!

My competition could not even SEE some of the things I shot. Without the EVF, in some cases, I could not see THE ACTION either ..

Just double up on the frame rate. drains battery quicker, but helps eliminate EVF lagginess. Besides as far as seeing what the result will (mostly) look like, just chimp a few shots and then the camera for the best possible settings and use the EVF for overall composition and pay attention to that histogram. It tells a story that most don't seem to understand.

Granted, APS-C cameras can be smallish since the sensors are in the same size range. 4/3 is not that much smaller as the conversion to FF is 1.85 vs 1.6 for Canon and 1.55 for Nikon. BUT, with 4/3 you don't have to deal with that old, non standard, oblong, 3/2 format. Oddly enough, in the day when film medium format was cutting edge, there was always the argument of the merits of 6x9 over 6x7 as though the oblong format would somehow make a so so picture an award winning photograph. Personally, I will never again use 3/2 format, I despise it that much. If 4/3 goes the way of the Studabaker, I will use medium format digital or just use film large and medium format. JMO

APS-C fails in the lens department. There's a lack of choice from every manufacturer. Kit lenses there are plenty, but nice primes and constant aperture zooms are lacking across all manufacturers. For Canon and Nikon you constantly have to resort to full frame glass, particularly at the wide end and you end up with strange focal lengths and larger than needed lenses. For NEX it's adapted lenses because of the lack of choice and now that Sony's gone full frame all those holes in the APS-C lens line are likely never to get filled. Fuji has nice lenses, but again not many. It's hard to see that APS-C has any future at all (except as the nichest of players), too big to be small, and not supported by a decent stable of lenses.

And mostly BAZOOKA lenses ... I carry and EM-1, 8 lenses, FL50 flash, filters, plenty batteries, PL-200 QR, and a few other bits in a LowePro 180 Nova AW bag.

There is NO apsc or FMF (Full Marketing Frame) camera that you could even remotely do that with.I sometimes don't know the situation so I take ALL the glass with me. Sometimes an EM-5 too.

Both OMDs leave my RB-67 in the DUST.It had an actual picture area of 56 x 69.5mm, or about - about 4.5 times the 35mm format

Both OMDs leave it in the dust for quality. When there's time, I'll dig out some 4x5 inch negs - about 14.2 TIMES as big as FMF. I would comfortably expect the OMDs comfortably beating 4x5 IQ. With Zuiko pro or prime lenses I'd expect better sharpness and less grain "noise" - except maybe for unprocessed night shots.

3:2 was made popular by good hardware, NOT by having usable ideal proportions! ... it was rarely useful without cropping. You had to "learn the proportions" and try to shoot according to its non intuitive nature.

The proportions were NOT chosen to make good pictures!They came about by adding 2 movie frames together, and also explains WHY the 6x9 format had VERY few users.

The VAST majority of roll film users (pretty well the only film where you had any choice in negative proportions) prefered 6x4.5 (4:3) and 6x7 (about 5:4, actually) or Hasselblad's SQUARE format (and its nice portable cameras) -NOT- the 3:2 of 6x9 format.

I saw the boxes leave the store.

FEW film formats had such weird elongation, all used a more ART-like aspect.

More about gear in this article

Olympus has released a major firmware update for two of its OM-D cameras as well as the PEN-F. It adds support for Profoto's TTL flash system and also brings numerous new features and bug fixes. Read more

The new Olympus OM-D E-M1 II is quite a camera. Capable of shooting at up to 60fps at full-resolution, and packing high-bitrate 4K video and in-body stabilization, the E-M1 II is a powerhouse. But if you already have an E-M1, is it worth the upgrade? Find out

Olympus unveiled the details of two fairly significant firmware updates, both of which will be available for download, for free, come November. The flagship Olympus OM-D E-M1 will receive firmware version 4.0. while the not even one-year-old OM-D E-M5 II will receive firmware version 2.0. Read more

Olympus has announced that it is is producing a new limited edition 'Titanium' OM-D E-M5 II camera. The Titanium E-M5 II will offer all of the same features and specs of the regular version, with its top and bottom plates swapped out for dark metallic versions that match those of the OM-3/Ti from 1994. Worldwide, 7,000 copies of the Titanium model will be made, though how many will be available in the US is yet to be announced. The company is also readying firmware updates for both the E-M1 and E-M5 II, related mostly to underwater shooting. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.